A world without GMO crops poses greater risks

This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

Despite the endorsements from scientific organizations and the hundreds of studies showing no adverse environmental or human health effects from consuming genetically modified food, there is still widespread opposition. The fear stems from uncertainty, writes Emily Calandrelli, a recent graduate from MIT with a Masters in Technology and Policy. She offers reasons why GMOs are feared and why they are necessary.

Some people opposed to GMOs think that because the plant would never grow ‘naturally,’ it is unhealthy or dangerous. But humans take part in a lot of ‘unnatural’ activities, Calandrelli writes, from organ transplants to microwaving food.

If farmers were to grow crops with 1960s technology—which is essentially the modern-day ‘organic’ farming—the world would need to grow an additional 3 billion acres to produce today’s current food yields. Humans must adapt to a growing population, and GM crops offer more crops per acre.

There is always an inherent risk to pursuing new types of technologies, Calandrelli writes, “but…the risks posed by not pursuing GM food technology are far greater.”

It is easier than ever for advocacy groups to spread disinformation on pressing science issues, such as the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. No, vaccines are not harmful. Yes, the use of biotechnology, GMOs or gene editing to develop antigens for treatments including vaccines are part of the solution. To inform the public about what’s really going on, we present the facts and challenge those who don't. We can’t do this work without your help. Please support us – a donation of as little as $10 a month helps support our vital myth-busting efforts.